Despite the obvious shift in the climate change and global warming debate, Democratic politicians are trying to hold fast and furious onto the notion that man is causing potentially disastrous global warming through carbon emissions.

A movement, which at one time claimed to be using science-based documentation about the effects of climate change, has lost credibility. Thanks to credible scientists who have withdrawn support for the concept because of the falsified science, American taxpayers are now taking notice and questioning the government’s expanding role in the debate.

At the crux of the issue is altered data and science — data originally produced by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists in the 1990’s. The data were altered by government bureaucrats in order to create a crisis, as well as a demand, says Lord Christopher Monckton, the Third Viscount Monckton of Benchley, also known as the “high priest” of climate skepticism.

At the invitation of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, Monckton is coming to Sacramento March 21 to speak to the Legislature, but said that he expects a “stormy session.” Many climate change skeptics are anxious about his visit, but he doesn’t appear to be very welcome by Democratic legislators and climat- change experts. He said he is anticipating a “childish attack.”

Grove has been trying to drum up support from her climate-change embracing colleagues, but so far has been unsuccessful. Not one Democratic Assembly member or state senator has accepted Grove’s invitation to debate or participate in a panel discussion event the same evening.

Grove said she extended an invitation to debate with Lord Monckton to Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, because Skinner is a self-described “climate change expert.” But Grove reported back that Skinner refused the offer to debate. Skinner said Lord Monckton “is not worthy” of talking with her. Grove reported that Skinner said Monckton has no credibility, and isn’t even a member of the House of Lords.

However, Monckton is a Lord by birthright, despite recent political changes now requiring election to the House of Lords. Monckton inisists that the House of Lords Act of 1999, which basically abolished hereditary peers such as himself, is unconstitutional. The act became law under Prime Minister Tony Blair and his “Cool Britannia” philosophy, which has led to Britain becoming an Orwellian police state.

The House of Lords originally existed to veto the more extremist actions of the House of Commons, which long has been elected by popular vote. The Blair reform effectively gutted the Lords’ powers to do so, paving way for Cool Britannia.

Crumbling Science and Politics

In a CalWatchDog.com interview, Lord Monckton said the climate change debate has been led for years by climate scientists who had been lionized by the media, as well as by well connected bankers trying to make money from carbon trading, and “childish” politicians desperately searching for a quick fix for crumbling budgets.

Monckton reiterated that the global warming scam represents the biggest transfer of wealth and power in human history — from the poor to the rich, from the weak to the strong, from the little guy to the big guy.

Monckton said that taxpayers are becoming wise to the expansive, invasive policies.

A 2011 Rasmussen poll found that 69 per cent of 1,000 respondents believed it at least “somewhat likely” that climate scientists had falsified their research data to support the case for catastrophic human-caused global warming. Forty per cent of respondents said falsification of research data was “very likely.” Only 22 per cent responded that they were sure that climate scientists had not falsified data.

Democratic Party and the Climate Change Mantra

The Democratic Party dominates the California Legislature. Of 120 total legislators, 77 are Democrat, only 43 Republican. The California Senate and Assembly have been dominated by the Democratic Party since 1959, except a brief period from 1969 to 1971, and the Assembly in 1996.

Lord Monckton does not have a science background, but is a businessman, newspaper editor, inventor of the Eternity puzzles and Sudoku X puzzles and a Cambridge-trained classical architect. But he was a special advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on global warming and climate change in the 1980’s.

Monckton has been studying climate change and the effects for many years. Despite his learned expertise, Monckton has become one of the favored pin-cushions of the left for his outspoken challenges to the climate change mantra.

And there is nothing like a crisis to create opportunity for government expansion.

But the facts didn’t dissuade liberal global warming followers, and instead, only caused the mainstream media to beef up its efforts to support the emotional movement.

“Most people parrot the Democratic Party line,” Monckton said. “They are taught only to parrot the party line and are comfortable doing it because it is safe. But then they act offended when challenged.”

Monckton said that an even bigger problem than parroting a party line is that most people don’t know any science at all. “They are playing it safe by going along with this mentality.”

Because of the fraudulent science used to develop international global warming policy in the 1980’s, 1990 and 2000’s, Monckton said he decided to do his own research on the science. He used the data and calculations originally used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists — before it was altered.

Monckton had his findings analyzed and confirmed by expert policy analysts, economists and scientists.

“Substantial conclusions were drawn, but were plainly wrong and then fraudulent,” Monckton said. “And now we’ve had a generation since the first forecast, which has proven to be incorrect.”

Now, Monckton says, liberals don’t want to admit that the climate change brouhaha was baseless. But the entire movement was founded on illegitimate science.

A Little Global Warming Can’t Hurt

Monckton does not deny that the earth warms and cools over time. But he said that, even if there is some warming eventually, his research and that of credible scientists has found that the damage to Gross Domestic Product would likely be only 0.5 percent to 3 percent.

But the cost to prevent even the minuscule damage will be 110 times greater, totaling $1.5 quadrillion.

The cost to California’s economy is already evident. “The wagons are already rolling Eastward instead of Westward,” Monckton said. “The tax base is going to dwindle as businesses and resident flee to other states.”

Monckton warned that if California continues to pursue its climate change implementation, the state’s bondholders will take a big haircut and bonds will be worth 70 percent of what they paid, “if they are lucky.” And California will not be able to borrow money.

“But flaky la-la-land California will go on pursuing this senseless policy right into insolvency and bankruptcy,” Monckton said. “State expansion will stop. Cap and trade will collapse. And Democrats will be forced out of office, hopefully not to be replaced by the soggy Republicans which have dominated the party for some years.”

European And Australian Experience

Monckton said that California’s politicians “need to grow up a little” and start realizing that, even after spending billions and taxing the state’s residents for cap and trade, AB 32 will not alter total emissions, and the $1.5 quadrillion spent on bogus cap and trade programs will accomplish nothing. He referred to the failed climate change policies in Australia and Europe, and said California’s politicians should have learned from this.

“The cost to fight greenhouse gas emissions will be far greater than not doing a thing,” Monckton said. “Politicians should do nothing now. “There is no need to take any action at all.”

36 comments

Lawrence Livermore Lab has recently released data indicating there has been no warming in 17 years. They based their conclusion on satellite data from temperatures in the lower troposphere rather than ground surface temperature measurements. The overall pattern shows that temperatures in the lower troposphere go up and down in cycles. See here: http://www.real-science.com/warming-17-years

I feel certain that the more than 31,000 scientists (including more than 9,000 with PhD’s) who have signed the Global Warming Petition Project,http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php definitely would not agree with the Governor; as these individuals have rejected the Kyoto Accords or any similar agreement ”as proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advancement of science and technology, and damage their health and welfare of mankind.” Given that AB 32 was roughly based on Kyoto, this enormous number of scientists seems to overwhelm the allegedly 2,500 or so (many of whom don’t agree with the results) climatologists, meteorologists,and other scientists who are listed as contributors on the final IPCC reports. In his ad hoc committee report to the Senate Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Edward J. Wegan, noted that “43 individuals of whom have close ties Ito Dr. Mann” http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
and “one of the interesting questions associated with the ‘hockey stick controversy’ are the relationships among the authors and consequently how confident one can be in the peer review process” (page 38.)

The 40+ scientists who wrote to the UN saying that “Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake” http://www.iceagenow.com/Letter_to_UN.htm
have made extremely valid points. Also, alarmists want to watch The Real CLIMATE-GATE – THE AGENDA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9IUcps8MfE&feature=related. Professor Bob Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, probably has the most thorough graphical/visual discussion of the entire 400,000 year examination of ice cores as well as seabed cores, on global warming issue in a four-part YouTube segment starting at Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? ,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=channel
and why the term Holocene Climactic Optimum has disappeared from the vocabulary of Climatologists. In parts 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=channel, 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=channel, and 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=channel Prof. Carter demonstrates eight significant problems with the IPCC conclusions, which he terms torpedoes, either of which he believes is sufficient to sink the IPCC ship and it’s recommendations! Finally, Burt Rutan, a flight test engineer with 45 years of data analysis/interpretation/presentation, provides an engineer’s viewpoint of the anthropogenic global warming debate, http://rps3.com/Files/Ochkosh_2010_talks/Oshkosh2010.EngrCritique.AGW.pdf and concludes with “The Alarmist (scientist, journalist, politician, etc.) chooses to huddle with other alarmists inside an echo chamber, attacking messengers who arrive, but spends no time to carefully inspect the data that forms his opinion, nor to notice the reporting of fraud”.
Perhaps the US District Court of Eastern California 28 December 2010 decision to halt implementation of CA’s Cap and Trade will ultimately be upheld at the US Supreme Court and end this entire statewide nightmare known as AB 32 and will end the disaster this idiotic law has afflicted our state employment as well as state revenues.

Climate change and all the absurd laws passed in California are nothing more than a smoke screen to get the sheeple to agree to being taxed for everything they consume! AB32 (Cap and Trade) will reduce our economy to a carbon credit trading system whereby the wealth of California and our nation will be redistributed.

We the people will be subject to huge taxes, while the big corporations will buy carbon credits and use them to mitigate their so called pollution. This is nothing more than a way to tax the masses!!! Wake up people!

Thanks to Shannon Grove and Lord Monckton for opening up this dialogue. It’s about time we have a real debate over this issue.

Skinner is a nothing more than a wannna be expert. She knows Lord Monckton will wipe the floor with her and doesn’t want to be caught in lies.

Come on progressives stand up and debate the issue or sit down and shut up!

Cap and Trade is nothing more than a money making scheme on a grand scale. Al Gore and his cronies were large stakeholders in the Chicago Carbon Exchange and stood to make hundreds of millions if they could scare enough people and politicians into believing this hogwash. They should all be shot.

If you believe in global warming then I can see why you don’t care how much money The Obama administration barrows. Because unlike the rest of the common sense people who know that that bill will come due . You believe in the Obama rainbow.

There is disagreement all over the world among scientists and climatologists about global climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded global warming results mainly from Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Others disagree, considering the conclusion a hoax. I am one of 31,478 scientists, a Geological Engineer for over a half century, registered in the Global Warming Petition Project, which advised the government we oppose plans to force expenditure of billions of dollars trying to reduce carbon dioxide. Notwithstanding that, laws and regulations have been passed to reduce CO2. Such actions caused Harold Lewis, famous Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of California to recently resigned from the top professional association for physicists saying “the money flood” has corrupted science and calls global warming a ‘scam’ with the trillions of dollars driving it that has corrupted so many scientists.” “It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have ever seen in my long life as a physicist.”

The hoax has also been exposed by the recent release by the Met Office, the UK’s National Weather Service, whose new figures show there has been no planet warming in 15 years. The figures suggest we may be headed for a mini ice age. The figures show that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Leading climate scientists contend after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading minimum output threatening cold summers and bitter winters. Sunspot numbers are running at less than half that seen during peaks in the 20th Century.

The Earth warms and cools in 100,000 year cycles. We’ are coming out of the latest Ice Age. The same thing happened many times before. Continents have cooled and heated many times, and oceans have been lower, and higher than present. The Earth is dynamic, and tectonic plates supporting our major continental masses, have collided and parted many times over billions of years. About 450 million years ago glaciers covered nearly the entire western continental masses. About 404 million years ago the Earth became devoid of ice. Between 144 and 66 million years ago dinosaurs reigned. The earth’s temperature then was warm to mild, and polar-regions were free of ice. The next onset of major glaciation began 40 million years ago. About 30 million years ago our six continents drifted to the positions they now hold. They are still moving, as horrendous earthquakes and tsunamis throughout the world demonstrate. Ice Ages occurred often. About 3 million years ago glaciers developed in Antarctica and 2 million years ago major glaciation occurred, and the northern hemisphere was covered by ice sheets. The Era was termed the Great Ice Age. During this period mankind was becoming widespread. The Era ended 10,000 years ago as a general warming trend occurred that was periodically interrupted by short relatively cool periods. One such cool period, from about 1500 A.D. to the late 1800s, was characterized by expansion of glaciers and persistence of sea ice for longer periods than had occurred previously. This Era, termed the Little Ice Age, is the Era from which we are presently emerging. Recognize that the earth began its latest warming before the first internal combustion engine was ever conceived.

Our planet has mostly been much hotter and humid than today, with far more carbon dioxide (CO2) than today. Earth’s atmosphere now contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geological times, our present atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. In the last 600 million years only one other geological period witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the late Ordovician Period 550 million ago was an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today, 4400 ppm. According to the greenhouse theory, it should have been exceedingly hot. The argument that reducing CO2 will help control our climate is a hoax, perpetrated by those who will benefit financially worldwide from expenditures of many billions of dollars on schemes to reduce CO2. They depend on the ignorance of the general public regarding historical geology and climatology to foster their hoax.

Wow, I didn’t know the California legislature hosted Comedy Nights… A discredited lying fraud paid for by the coal industry is the best they can do? People in denial are truly pathetic with their flailing desperation and denouncement of reality… “If I debate this just one more time to soothe my ego, maybe it will all go away!” Sad.

“To the consternation of global warming proponents, the late Ordovician Period 550 million ago was an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today, 4400 ppm.”

A quick followup question — what caused the Ordovician Ice Age to end?

No one want to debate the Lord because 1) he is not actually a Lord, 2) he is a well-known fraud ,3) he has never published anything in a scientific journal regarding climate, 4) he has been caught numerous times in lies and misrepresentations of other’s works, and 5) he’s actually not a scientist but a classic and journalism major.

I’m sure many are easily fooled by his grandiose statements and apparent wealth of knowledge, but a quick Google search will reveal numerous documents and videos debunking his lies and fraud thoroughly. For example, here’s a six-part series which takes apart most of his phony claims:
Why would anyone bother to debate a non-scientist who’s been thoroughly vetted as a charlatan?

Here is what we know: The Earth is round, smoking is linked to lung cancer, and humans are changing the climate by emitting massive amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases. Like extra blankets at night, those emissions are warming the planet. The physics of greenhouse gases has been understood for more than 100 years. It is not new science.

During the height of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, about 5,000 metric tons of oil spilled into the water a day. At the same time, human activities were pumping 82 million metric tons of carbon dioxide daily into the atmosphere, a record. For perspective, our emissions from fossil fuels are equivalent to 15,000 Gulf oil spills every single day.

The pattern of observed warming is precisely what the physics tells us we should see if heat is being trapped by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Nights are warming faster than days, winters are warming faster than summers, the oceans are gaining heat, and the lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling. There are no known natural mechanisms that can cause this observed warming pattern. To state otherwise is to suggest that although we see human fingerprints all over the murder weapon, the killer must a ghost. Because of the mountain of evidence, the National Research Council, an arm of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated in 2010 that human-caused climate change is “settled fact.” There is no informed debate that increasing carbon will cause this warming to continue. Virtually every publishing scientist and all international science academies agree on this.

Historical evidence, well-understood physics, and sophisticated climate models all point to a dangerously warm climate if emissions are not dramatically reduced. In fact, the International Energy Agency reports that humanity has about five years to rapidly move away from a fossil fuel-based economy before catastrophic climate change may be locked in. Killer heat waves, devastating droughts and wildfires, and unprecedented floods are expected in our warmer world and we are witnessing these events now. Climate is the canvas and weather is what is painted on that canvas. Change the canvas and all weather is affected. The extra heat and moisture that human-caused warming is adding to the climate is like injecting steroids into our weather.

Who else is concerned? Military and intelligence experts warn that climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions. Health officials warn us that climate change could be the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. Climate change was recently listed as the greatest strategic risk currently facing the property/casualty insurance industry.

We need to reduce our emissions of carbon for the sake of our public health, national security, and economic competitiveness. Surely it is foolish to base our economic energy needs on sources that are dwindling in supply and increasing in price when, instead, we could move toward energy efficiency and cheaper-by-the-year, infinite sources such as the sun and wind. If we stay addicted to fossil fuels and do not begin investing in those technologies now, we will be buying them from China in the future instead of selling it to them.

Joe Sullivan above states that he is one of the 31,748 scientists who have signed a petition saying they don’t believe climate change is real. Interesting.

Let’s look into this, shall we?

Joe Sullivan, geologist… as far as I can see turns up zero papers on climate in the published literature according to google scholar. There is a Joe Sullivan who is a botanist, but would assume that’s not the same person. So, let’s assume that Mr Sullivan is not a publishing climate scientist. But he does have at least some scientific credentials. That makes him eligible to sign the Oregon petition.

What does the number 31,748 mean? How do we put it in context? We do that by adding a denominator. How many people are credentialed enough to sign this Oregon petition? The petition states that all that is required is a BSc or “equivalent.” We’ll ignore what the definition of “equivalent” means and just stick with BSc or better. How many people fit this description? Well, according to the 2000 US Census there are about 31 million people that fit the bill. That means, of people holding a BSc or better, about one tenth of 1% (0.1%) have signed this petition.

Mr Sullivan displays an incredible lack of understanding of the physical science supporting climate change. He discusses CO2 levels during the late Ordovician, at point in Earth’s history nearly devoid of land based life (primitive life was almost completely restricted to the oceans during this period), when we had levels of CO2 that were far greater than today. No news for scientists there. The cap carbonite deposits that follow low latitude glaciation events are actually additional proof that high levels of atmospheric CO2 were required to pull the planet out of such a deep glaciation event. (Google “Snowball Earth”)

Mr Sullivan also attempts to use glacial-interglacial cycles to disprove AGW. Here he also clearly does not comprehend or even bother to read any of the science on this topic. These glacial-interglacial cycles are the result of an orbital forcing mechanism called Milankovitch cycles. Small changes in the planet’s orbit, tilt, precession, contribute to slightly altering solar insolation. But this is not enough of a forcing to cause the 6-8C changes we see in the glacial-interglacial cycles. This is why we see the additional CO2 feedbacks contributing to the amplification of those cycles.

All this is basic physics that dates back to Joseph Fourier in the 1820’s, John Tyndall in the 1850’s, Svante Arrhenius in the early 1900’s, and even the US military after WW2. When the US was developing heat seeking missiles they did extensive research on the radiative properties of the atmosphere which confirmed all the previous physical science.

Mr Sullivan also states that we’ve seen no warming for 15 years. This is not true. He is making a long debunked error based on misreporting of statements made by Dr Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU. Jones stated, then (Jan 2010), that there had been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995. This was an accurate statement. If you listen to the interview he goes on to state there HAS been warming, but the warming falls short of “statistical significance.” That means there are too few years of data to rise to a 95% confidence level. The following January Dr Jones published a statement that, with the one additional year of data statistical significance had been achieved. So, yes, statistically significant warming since 1995.

These people, like Mr Sullivan, are trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. Feel free to check my data against his. Go directly to the published research and see for yourself.

Ms. Grimes, the “About” link for this site says “CalWatchdog adheres to the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.”. That code (see http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) includes the following points:

“Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
…
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
…
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
…
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.”

I believe you have failed on all of these points of ethics, but most especially the first, as others here have pointed out. Either that, or you’ve failed even basic journalism by failing to point out that you were quoting Lord Monckton. There has been no falsified science, except as presented at lectures by the likes of Lord Monckton.

Reply to Bill Walker: In fact, Katy Grimes followed the Code of Ethics. She provided a factual report on Lord Monckton’s position. She even provided a reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a hyperlink to it, so people could check the opposing position. How many articles on global warming — excuse me, climate change — in the New York Times do that for the sites of climate-change skeptics?

As to advertising, we don’t even have ads here except for our radio show or an occasional event we think of interest to readers. We’re a non-profit.

Oh, look the same old, same old, perpetual frauds at posts #9 to #15 are out trolling. If you guys had an once of real evidence other than your flakey Playstation models maybe somebody would listen to you.

Despite billions of dollars wasted on your pseudoscience you having nothing to show for it whilst millions of under privileged people around the world suffer and die because of your scams, wildlife is butchered by your windmills, once beautiful landscapes are ruined, etc. Where is your humility ?

What’s the odds the above nay-sayers who deem Christopher Monckton’s presentation “unworthy” of their notice have no problem with the shenanigans revealed in the Climategate 1 and 2 e-mails or in Peter Gleick’s fraudulent misrepresentations? The attack dogs don’t dare face the Lord face-to-face, anymore than they exhibit a scientific approach to evidence. They justify their vile ends by any means, but let them spew.

Scott Mandia says:
March 20, 2012 at 5:57 am
“Here is what we know: The Earth is round, smoking is linked to lung cancer, and humans are changing the climate by emitting massive amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases. Like extra blankets at night, those emissions are warming the planet. The physics of greenhouse gases has been understood for more than 100 years. It is not new science.”

Scott, that’s a whole forest of strawmen. If you listened to Lord Mockton you would know that he does not dispute the physical properties of CO2. If you have anything substantial to say, why do you start with knocking down strawmen. Brevity is king. You are just using your comment to mischaracterize the skeptics. BTW, the planet is not warming, so better go back to the drawing board and correct your climate models before your funding runs out.

Climate Change is nothing more than opportunity to fool people with complex ‘science’ and derive revenue. Regardless of who says what we need to get back to the basics on this and only measurements that matter are those directly made of this Earth and nothing is jumping out from the direct measurements to show that there is anything wrong in the world as a whole.

The trouble is people seem to think that just because you throw vast sums of money at complex models and computing that somehow they can rewrite statistical theory and ignore accumulative mathematical errors in their models. If long term climate models were so accurate then:

a) Why does each successive IPCC report show progressively diminished headline warming as projected by the models? Maybe reality has been not performing as expected?
b) Why doesn’t short term weather forecasters include the algorithms into their models and improve their accuracy? Maybe they know trying to model a highly complex and constantly dynamic system from sparse samples is essentially fruitless over a longer time scale..

The fact is and has been shown repeatedly – the models are very poor predictors of climate behavior, even over the short term. Yes, you can combine model outputs to get something that ‘fits’ better – but thats called controlling the population sample to get the result you want – you really need to include ALL models by ALL parties before you have anything significant to say by that technique…

Basically, can we all stop wasting money on propping up the dead duck that is Climate Change and get back to spending the hard earned public cash on something actually beneficial in the long term? Anybody for fusion power, or a cure to cancer?

While I personally find Monckton a bit of an egomaniac and his oratory over the top, I do need to stand up for the guy against some of the lies which Mandia and others have posted here. Monckton is a Lord. He is not a fraud.

Anyone who cares to click through to the videos “debunking” him will find a lot of straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks and where the guy does make mistakes, they is fairly minor. I’ve gone in circles trying to compare his presentations to those debunking him. His errors, the ones these guys pounce on, do not affect the validity of what he says. It shows he is a bit sloppy with his details, but the facts and underlying science he cites is well known and accepted.

Scott Mandia (the self styled super hero who dresses up in a costume as a climate warrior?! – seriously) says:

“human activities were pumping 82 million metric tons of carbon dioxide daily into the atmosphere, a record. For perspective, our emissions from fossil fuels are equivalent to 15,000 Gulf oil spills every single day.”

So… where do we get the idea that we should compare CO2 to a pollution? That seems to be a popular notion, but it is blatantly wrong. The human percentage is extremely small compared to the natural carbon cycle. The natural carbon cycle is measured in Gigatonnes.

That said, we are emitting CO2 at high rates and we should be concerned about it. But to presume the sky is falling, that we are all gonna die, that the seas are going to rise and civilization is about to be wiped out, I think that is going too far. None of catastrophe scenarios are even remotely likely. All past predictions by the luminaries of CAGW have failed to come to pass.

We should continue to watch the problem – and yes, it is a potential problem. We are changing our biosphere with the increased CO2. In some ways it has already been beneficial in increased crop yields. Plants love CO2 which is why we pump up to 2000ppm into greenhouses. Today we are at 392ppm. If that rises to 650ppm the best guess estimates as to the increase in temperature is between 1 degrees and 3 degrees.

1) It is not a foregone conclusion that we will hit 650 ppm
2) If we do hit 650ppm, 1 to 3 degrees of warming is still within the range of natural variability
3) At that point we will likely have run out of oil, atmospheric CO2 levels will fall once again and we will be on the edge of the next ice age.

If CO2 falls below 150ppm, all life dies. We need it. In the past it has been far higher than it is today, and far higher than even the most extreme predictions. The warming they predicted in the 1990s never happened. We are BELOW the levels they claimed would happen if we immediately stopped all industry, immediately stopped western civilization and halted CO2 increases. Below that!

It is very disconcerting to hear that the democratic lawmakers were not in attendance. What are they afraid of? That their opinion might be changed?

They, and other believers, are living in the 00’s. It’s time to update your memes to the ’10’s people. We are back to global cooling, just as scientists “proved” in the 1970’s.

Does anyone remember when they told us we had to switch from paper bags to plastic to “save the trees”, and now we are back to using trees for our paper bags to “save the planet” and because trees are a renewable resource. Those in power are always so wise.

If you want to do something about the CO2 in the atmosphere, plant some trees.

If what you say is true why are so many Climate scientists being caught manipulating the peer-review process, hiding the decline, using tricks in place of science, fraudulently distributing forged documents, avoiding FOIA requests,”losing” data, etc., etc.

Lord Monckton is much reviled by CAGW extremists for exposing the absurdity of wild claims inferred from benign scientific research.

@Scott Mandia – Your “team” diatribe is the same fallacy laden fear mongering that has been promulgated for the last 20 years. The physics of green house gases may have been understood for the last 100 years but the impact of CO2 on the ATMOSPHERE has not. Where is the tropospheric “hot spot” that the models predicted? It doesn’t exist. In the last 100 years there were two 30 year periods of identical temperature increases, yet only the second is attributed to CO2. There has been no warming in the last 17 years. The sophisticated models of which you speak can’t even properly hind-cast without questionable modifications to the temperature record. And contrary to what you say, the earth’s shape is closer to oblate spheroid than round. Of course, little things like that don’t matter when fighting for the “cause”.

There is no credible theory of how CO2 affects atmospheric temperature. There is only a tortured hypothesis that has been substituted for what the state of the science was in the late ’60s (for example, see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967ApJ…149..731S ),

I used to attribute the new lack of understanding to naivety, but it has become abundantly clear that the motivation of the the folks promoting CO2 alarmism stems from either their being paid to do so, or their desire to drive western civilization back into the stone age, or in many cases, just their plain stupidity.

caerbannog says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:31 pm
“To the consternation of global warming proponents, the late Ordovician Period 550 million ago was an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today, 4400 ppm.”
A quick followup question — what caused the Ordovician Ice Age to end?

__________

This is what wikipedia says:

“The most commonly accepted theory is that these events were triggered by the onset of most cold conditions in the late Katian, followed by an ice age, in the Hirnantian faunal stage, that ended the long, stable greenhouse conditions typical of the Ordovician.

The ice age was possibly not long-lasting, study of oxygen isotopes in fossil brachiopods showing that its duration could have been only 0.5 to 1.5 million years.[9] Other researchers (Page et al.) estimate more temperate conditions did not return until the late Silurian.

The late Ordovician glaciation event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm[citation needed]), which selectively affected the shallow seas where most organisms lived. As the southern supercontinent Gondwana drifted over the South Pole, ice caps formed on it, which have been detected in Upper Ordovician rock strata of North Africa and then-adjacent northeastern South America, which were south-polar locations at the time.”

JM says:
March 19, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Wow, I didn’t know the California legislature hosted Comedy Nights… A discredited lying fraud paid for by the coal industry is the best they can do? People in denial are truly pathetic with their flailing desperation and denouncement of reality… “If I debate this just one more time to soothe my ego, maybe it will all go away!” Sad.

________________________________

Then we can assume you agree with everything Monckton says if it can be shown that he is not “A discredited lying fraud paid for by the coal industry”.

Perhaps providing arguments as to why you believe your unsubstantiated claims would be more productive than “to soothe my ego,… to make it “all go away!”

Scott Mandia , T.F, E.J.A, remind me of an era all too familiar to Europeans.While Soviet Union was already falling apart, die hard leftists still repeated old Brezhnevian mantras.They just did not see how they were making fools of themselves in public.
The religion of “Man made climate change” is crumbling.Here in Europe, only idiots, organised crime and some politicians still “believe” in CO2 being the problem.Germany has her grid in chaos because of solar- and windpower, Britain is taking steps backwards with her failed windfarms, most rural weather stations around northern Europe show no warming for last 100 years, so why anyone should believe those “climate scientists”?
No superman(dia) is going to save the CO2 religion.The game is over.

Hey, wait,
remember, the absentees are in the group of the folk that strongly supported eugenics!
The Oregonian had a big article on how they gleefully “removed the ability to procreate” from more folk than any other state.

Just cuz they still want to eliminate the “surplus population”
(but, of course, not them or their progeny),
doesn’t mean they’re incorrigible… or does it?

Man can do nothing to change climate. Man has never done anything to change climate. Yet we are to be taxed for something we did not do. It’s as bad as Obamacare, in which we can be taxed for not buying insurance. There is no logical basis for taxes of either cap and trade or Obamacare. I take that back: the sole logical reason for these taxes is to gain more CONTROL and POWER over us.

Tess first: the Nobel prize has long been a meaningless poaiticll statement, and therefore of dubious merit, except for the monetary part. If pres. Obummer could get it for doing absolutely Nothing, then Monckton deserves it for his superb investigation of the so-called global warming facts as presented by Gore, who would be torn to shreads during a debate between the two (which Gore avoids at all costs). As to global warming , Tess is obviously ignorant of the facts, or so tied to an Agenda that she is unable or unwilling to assess the facts. The Agendists conveniently ignore the data by discarding it in favor of any data, however tenuous, that supports their belief .They are well known to discard anything that doesn’t fit their curves. With them, it is a religion based on preconcieved prejudices, often related strongly to economic moires they use it to make money, gain power, or temporary notoriety, or all three. Note that many of the warmers were, just a few decades ago, coolers , they predicted ice buildup to inundate the earth was imminent. These same Agendists today predict the warmer earth will flood the lowlands with sea overflow,causing mass destruction! I have, for two decades, followed the sea level personally and found there to be NO truth to their claims; sea level has risen about 3/4 inch in that time. Hardly ehough to account for the massive rise of volcanic islands around the world. I, for one, agree with Monckton that the Warmers scare tactics are just that, and have absolutely no grounds for action of any sort. They are strictly poaiticll or, to be benevolent, so Agendisized that they would be pressed to locate their provobial proboscices in a dark room!